Domestic Politics

[hedaik]

Abbott has backed down over the EW Link and has said he'll fund another road project instead.

So because of stupid politics and 20 protesters we are now going to end up with a second best option.

Sometimes I think it'd be good to live in China so shit just gets done.

Sidenote: I also think Abbotts an idiot for not funding the metro rail.

Metro rail is never happening. Costs too much to build, and once it's built they'll just be a whole lot more heavily subsidised trains running through it, bleeding money every year. Doesn't stack up at all.

Surely there's an economic breaking point when lack of transport options stops people from getting into work and trucks, vans etc are slowed down.

Hong Kong, Singapore, London would be a shadow of themselves without their train systems (and yes I know people were paid 14 cents a day to build them)

[Tesla]

Abbott has backed down over the EW Link and has said he'll fund another road project instead.

So because of stupid politics and 20 protesters we are now going to end up with a second best option.

Sometimes I think it'd be good to live in China so shit just gets done.

Sidenote: I also think Abbotts an idiot for not funding the metro rail.

Metro rail is never happening. Costs too much to build, and once it's built they'll just be a whole lot more heavily subsidised trains running through it, bleeding money every year. Doesn't stack up at all.

Surely there's an economic breaking point when lack of transport options stops people from getting into work and trucks, vans etc are slowed down.

Hong Kong, Singapore, London would be a shadow of themselves without their train systems (and yes I know people were paid 14 cents a day to build them)

Of course. I'm not saying don't build the metro tunnel, I'm just saying it's not likely to happen. I think it's an important project. But further subsidising PT to win votes at the last election, by both parties, doesn't help.

This is why toll roads get up before PT, because you can charge a toll and so the government doesn't need to fund the whole thing.

[jw1739]

 

 

Abbott has backed down over the EW Link and has said he'll fund another road project instead.

So because of stupid politics and 20 protesters we are now going to end up with a second best option.

Sometimes I think it'd be good to live in China so shit just gets done.

Sidenote: I also think Abbotts an idiot for not funding the metro rail.

Metro rail is never happening. Costs too much to build, and once it's built they'll just be a whole lot more heavily subsidised trains running through it, bleeding money every year. Doesn't stack up at all.

Surely there's an economic breaking point when lack of transport options stops people from getting into work and trucks, vans etc are slowed down.

Hong Kong, Singapore, London would be a shadow of themselves without their train systems (and yes I know people were paid 14 cents a day to build them)

That's really the whole point. Yes, the cost of building infrastructure such as PT seems high, but at least at the end of the day you have something for your expenditure. And if you've managed the project well you have something that will last for a very long time. The cost of not building infrastructure is there in the lack of productivity caused by people not being able to be where they need to be in a reasonable time. It may not appear on the government's balance sheet but it's still there. Meanwhile the government will have frittered the money away on something else that has no tangible end-product - such as endless enquiries, lefty-pleasing feel-good "social" projects, and hand-outs to the fad minorities making the most noise.

[Shahanga]

 

 

 

Abbott has backed down over the EW Link and has said he'll fund another road project instead.

So because of stupid politics and 20 protesters we are now going to end up with a second best option.

Sometimes I think it'd be good to live in China so shit just gets done.

Sidenote: I also think Abbotts an idiot for not funding the metro rail.

Metro rail is never happening. Costs too much to build, and once it's built they'll just be a whole lot more heavily subsidised trains running through it, bleeding money every year. Doesn't stack up at all.

Surely there's an economic breaking point when lack of transport options stops people from getting into work and trucks, vans etc are slowed down.

Hong Kong, Singapore, London would be a shadow of themselves without their train systems (and yes I know people were paid 14 cents a day to build them)

That's really the whole point. Yes, the cost of building infrastructure such as PT seems high, but at least at the end of the day you have something for your expenditure. And if you've managed the project well you have something that will last for a very long time. The cost of not building infrastructure is there in the lack of productivity caused by people not being able to be where they need to be in a reasonable time. It may not appear on the government's balance sheet but it's still there. Meanwhile the government will have frittered the money away on something else that has no tangible end-product - such as endless enquiries, lefty-pleasing feel-good "social" projects, and hand-outs to the fad minorities making the most noise.

 

and that post is why you aren't (to the best of my knowledge) in politics jw.

 

You make way too much sense.

[Shahanga]

Start rant.

 

A royal commission into domestic violence?  That's our state governments big initiative??

 

The thing about royal commissions is, they tend to cost a fortune, take forever, then the commissioner makes a whole of recommendations that are completely unacceptable to the government, which they ignore.  Their sole purpose seems to be to make the gullible public think they are actually doing something, when in reality they aren't.

 

 It would be a hell of a lot cheaper to sit down with the coppers and ask them what else the government could do, but no, that would be cheap, low profile and effective.

 

End rant.

[cadete]

Start rant.

 

A royal commission into domestic violence?  That's our state governments big initiative??

 

The thing about royal commissions is, they tend to cost a fortune, take forever, then the commissioner makes a whole of recommendations that are completely unacceptable to the government, which they ignore.  Their sole purpose seems to be to make the gullible public think they are actually doing something, when in reality they aren't.

 

 It would be a hell of a lot cheaper to sit down with the coppers and ask them what else the government could do, but no, that would be cheap, low profile and effective.

 

End rant.

I think you will find the focus will be more on how Child Protection Services works than how the Police initially deal with Domestic Abuse... the focus will be more on Department Policy on dealing with these issues.

 

You would find few who would argue against the Royal Commission into the Catholic Church being required, so its makes sense just statistically that a similar Commission into the State System is even more warranted.

[Jimmy]

Bit late, but as someone who knew and had played a fair bit of golf with arrogant old Malcolm it's sad to see him go. Has a beautiful family and my thoughts are with them.

[jw1739]

 

 

 

 

Abbott has backed down over the EW Link and has said he'll fund another road project instead.

So because of stupid politics and 20 protesters we are now going to end up with a second best option.

Sometimes I think it'd be good to live in China so shit just gets done.

Sidenote: I also think Abbotts an idiot for not funding the metro rail.

Metro rail is never happening. Costs too much to build, and once it's built they'll just be a whole lot more heavily subsidised trains running through it, bleeding money every year. Doesn't stack up at all.

Surely there's an economic breaking point when lack of transport options stops people from getting into work and trucks, vans etc are slowed down.

Hong Kong, Singapore, London would be a shadow of themselves without their train systems (and yes I know people were paid 14 cents a day to build them)

That's really the whole point. Yes, the cost of building infrastructure such as PT seems high, but at least at the end of the day you have something for your expenditure. And if you've managed the project well you have something that will last for a very long time. The cost of not building infrastructure is there in the lack of productivity caused by people not being able to be where they need to be in a reasonable time. It may not appear on the government's balance sheet but it's still there. Meanwhile the government will have frittered the money away on something else that has no tangible end-product - such as endless enquiries, lefty-pleasing feel-good "social" projects, and hand-outs to the fad minorities making the most noise.

 

and that post is why you aren't (to the best of my knowledge) in politics jw.

 

You make way too much sense.

You are correct!

 

Just as examples of "how to get things done"...

 

1. I don't know how many people caught the TV program on London's "Crossrail" project. http://www.crossrail.co.uk/ 

 

2. The Hong Kong MTR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR

 

My wife and I were on the MTR as recently as last year. And the airport on Lantau Island is pretty damn impressive as well...

[cadete]

Bit late, but as someone who knew and had played a fair bit of golf with arrogant old Malcolm it's sad to see him go. Has a beautiful family and my thoughts are with them.

He also won two record landslide Federal Elections... unlike somebody else who passed away recently who was worshipped as a god for losing these elections in such a devastating fashion. 

Edited March 21, 2015 by cadete

[thisphantomfortress]

Bit late, but as someone who knew and had played a fair bit of golf with arrogant old Malcolm it's sad to see him go. Has a beautiful family and my thoughts are with them.

He also won two record landslide Federal Elections... unlike somebody else who passed away recently who was worshipped as a god for losing these elections in such a devastating fashion.

The revisionism from the left has been an absolute joke. Whitlam served three years and faced the humiliation of double dissolution where as Fraser served a solid 8 years. One has been treated like a political demi-god the other has recieved a lot less attention than he deserves.

[cadete]

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/numbers-inside-liberal-party-swing-in-favour-of-marriage-equality-as-email-campaign-hots-up-20150323-1m5gop.html?&utm_source=social&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn%3Afac-14omn0013-optim-nnn%3Anonpaid-25%2F06%2F2014-social_traffic-all-organicpost-nnn-smh-o&campaign_code=nocode&promote_channel=social_facebook

 

About time more PPL started treating this as a Non Political Issue... 

Edited March 23, 2015 by cadete

[thisphantomfortress]

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/so-this-is-easter--melbourne-faces-off-at-antiislam-rally-as-police-on-horseback-hold-factions-apart-20150404-1mel68.html

The horseshoe effect in practise. Cant decide which side I hate more. Probably the reclaim clowns but it's a close one.

[malloy]

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/so-this-is-easter--melbourne-faces-off-at-antiislam-rally-as-police-on-horseback-hold-factions-apart-20150404-1mel68.html

The horseshoe effect in practise. Cant decide which side I hate more. Probably the reclaim clowns but it's a close one.

 

Regardless of which side of politics you are on, surely the burning of the Australian flag by the counter protesters has to take the cake as the most disgraceful act of the day. I can only imagine the uproar if one of the Reclaim Australia posters was pictured burning a Koran.

 

I do also find it somewhat ironic that the Socialist Alliance subjected the Raclaim Australia protesters to violence and attempted intimidation yet always complain that the police do the same to them....

 

FWIW being anti-religion is not being racist. It may, though not necessarily, be discriminatory when aimed solely at one religion, but it is not racism.

[Hackett]

 

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/so-this-is-easter--melbourne-faces-off-at-antiislam-rally-as-police-on-horseback-hold-factions-apart-20150404-1mel68.html

The horseshoe effect in practise. Cant decide which side I hate more. Probably the reclaim clowns but it's a close one.

 

Regardless of which side of politics you are on, surely the burning of the Australian flag by the counter protesters has to take the cake as the most disgraceful act of the day. I can only imagine the uproar if one of the Reclaim Australia posters was pictured burning a Koran.

 

I do also find it somewhat ironic that the Socialist Alliance subjected the Raclaim Australia protesters to violence and attempted intimidation yet always complain that the police do the same to them....

 

FWIW being anti-religion is not being racist. It may, though not necessarily, be discriminatory when aimed solely at one religion, but it is not racism.

 

 

Having briefly saw what was going on as I passed through Flinders yesterday it seemed that the Reclaim Group was a lot more diverse than the mostly Anglo "anti-racist" counter demonstrators. 

[Moraiwe]

Regardless of which side of politics you are on, surely the burning of the Australian flag by the counter protesters has to take the cake as the most disgraceful act of the day. I can only imagine the uproar if one of the Reclaim Australia posters was pictured burning a Koran.

If burning an Australian flag was the most disgraceful act of the day, then:

a ) it was one of the best days in history

or

b ) you have problems with perspective or priorities.

Edited April 5, 2015 by Moraiwe

[thisphantomfortress]

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/so-this-is-easter--melbourne-faces-off-at-antiislam-rally-as-police-on-horseback-hold-factions-apart-20150404-1mel68.html

The horseshoe effect in practise. Cant decide which side I hate more. Probably the reclaim clowns but it's a close one.

 

Regardless of which side of politics you are on, surely the burning of the Australian flag by the counter protesters has to take the cake as the most disgraceful act of the day. I can only imagine the uproar if one of the Reclaim Australia posters was pictured burning a Koran.

 

I do also find it somewhat ironic that the Socialist Alliance subjected the Raclaim Australia protesters to violence and attempted intimidation yet always complain that the police do the same to them....

 

FWIW being anti-religion is not being racist. It may, though not necessarily, be discriminatory when aimed solely at one religion, but it is not racism. I think both sides were fairly disgraceful, so far as the bully tactics employeed by the SA it's hardly a surprise and they are a group that has always appeared a joke due it the glaring hypocrisy, holier than thou morality and victim mentality.

I probably like the reclaim lot least due to the irrational fear of what amounts to about 2% of the population. I suppose I'm jaded and expected the actions of the SA and buddies and so have had less of an emotional response to it, just more a feeling of "there they go again."

[thisphantomfortress]

Regardless of which side of politics you are on, surely the burning of the Australian flag by the counter protesters has to take the cake as the most disgraceful act of the day. I can only imagine the uproar if one of the Reclaim Australia posters was pictured burning a Koran.

If burning an Australian flag was the most disgraceful act of the day, then:

a ) it was one of the best days in history

or

b ) you have problems with perspective or priorities.

In the context of the protest I'd say it was at least as bad as any of the violence. lts a symbolic act of hatred and should be treated as such. Inb4 it's just a piece of material.

[malloy]

 

Regardless of which side of politics you are on, surely the burning of the Australian flag by the counter protesters has to take the cake as the most disgraceful act of the day. I can only imagine the uproar if one of the Reclaim Australia posters was pictured burning a Koran.

If burning an Australian flag was the most disgraceful act of the day, then:

a ) it was one of the best days in history

or

b ) you have problems with perspective or priorities.

 

 

I am sorry that you don't hold this country's flag as sacred.

 

Do you care to elaborate on what my perspectives or priorities should be according to you?  

[Tesla]

This whole thing brings up an interesting issue, and I'm sure I'll cop shit for bringing this up.

We have a big problem, in that a lot of people identify our national flag not as a symbol of national pride as it should be, rather they identify it as a symbol of racism and bogans.

I think the reason for this is pretty clear, because it's the first thing these racist groups/protestor/whatever grab and wave around, and it's the same with bogans they love to fucking have it everywhere on their clothes and cars and what not.

Whereas the flag is not as prominent as it should be when it comes to positive representations of our nation. Eg, we dont even use our flags colours for our sporting teams and some generic green and gold flag being waved is about as common as our national flag. Not too mention this strange phenomenon whereby the Aboriginal flag is waved alongside the Australian flag in a lot of official situations.

The end result is that the flag just isnt as prominent as it should be in the right situations, but is very prominent in the wrong situations, which affects the perception of its symbolism.

Given that there are already issues with the flag, in that it contains the flag of another nation in it and therefore stands for some quite horrible things TBH, it's time we really got a move on with replacing it.

That doesn't mean I approve of people burning it though.

[thisphantomfortress]

You make a good point about the exposure in "the wrong situations." Burning it does nothing but enforce this and if the SA and co. were genuinely anti racist they should have rallied around the flag too and used it as a symbol of unity it should be. But I don't think attention seeking commies think that rationally.

I fully agree with replacing it with something more representative of all Australians. As part of the process I'd probably say it's about time we integrated both indigenous flags into the design and remove the three flag culture that has developed as a result. We are one nation not three and it's about time we acted like it.

[malloy]

This whole thing brings up an interesting issue, and I'm sure I'll cop shit for bringing this up.

We have a big problem, in that a lot of people identify our national flag not as a symbol of national pride as it should be, rather they identify it as a symbol of racism and bogans.

I think the reason for this is pretty clear, because it's the first thing these racist groups/protestor/whatever grab and wave around, and it's the same with bogans they love to fucking have it everywhere on their clothes and cars and what not.

Whereas the flag is not as prominent as it should be when it comes to positive representations of our nation. Eg, we dont even use our flags colours for our sporting teams and some generic green and gold flag being waved is about as common as our national flag. Not too mention this strange phenomenon whereby the Aboriginal flag is waved alongside the Australian flag in a lot of official situations.

The end result is that the flag just isnt as prominent as it should be in the right situations, but is very prominent in the wrong situations, which affects the perception of its symbolism.

Given that there are already issues with the flag, in that it contains the flag of another nation in it and therefore stands for some quite horrible things TBH, it's time we really got a move on with replacing it.

That doesn't mean I approve of people burning it though.

 

It shits me that our flag is not viewed as as symbol of national pride.

 

Our flag actually has the flag of three other nations on it, but I guess it is largely irrelevant whether it is one or three.

 

I don't think that the flag stands for 'some quite horrible things' merely because it has the flag of 'another nation' nor that policies of past governments were oppressive to Aboriginals (some what similar to the way most people refer to Germany during WWII as Nazi Germany or simply the Nazi's as that period is not reflective of the people who make up the country today).  I see the flag as a representation of the country and its people regardless of our colourful history.  I understand that there will be minority groups that may not be happy with our flag, but find me one country who has not had a colourful history.

[sheepdog]

This whole thing brings up an interesting issue, and I'm sure I'll cop shit for bringing this up.

We have a big problem, in that a lot of people identify our national flag not as a symbol of national pride as it should be, rather they identify it as a symbol of racism and bogans.

I think the reason for this is pretty clear, because it's the first thing these racist groups/protestor/whatever grab and wave around, and it's the same with bogans they love to fucking have it everywhere on their clothes and cars and what not.

Whereas the flag is not as prominent as it should be when it comes to positive representations of our nation. Eg, we dont even use our flags colours for our sporting teams and some generic green and gold flag being waved is about as common as our national flag. Not too mention this strange phenomenon whereby the Aboriginal flag is waved alongside the Australian flag in a lot of official situations.

The end result is that the flag just isnt as prominent as it should be in the right situations, but is very prominent in the wrong situations, which affects the perception of its symbolism.

Given that there are already issues with the flag, in that it contains the flag of another nation in it and therefore stands for some quite horrible things TBH, it's time we really got a move on with replacing it.

That doesn't mean I approve of people burning it though.

It shits me that our flag is not viewed as as symbol of national pride.

Our flag actually has the flag of three other nations on it, but I guess it is largely irrelevant whether it is one or three.

I don't think that the flag stands for 'some quite horrible things' merely because it has the flag of 'another nation' nor that policies of past governments were oppressive to Aboriginals (some what similar to the way most people refer to Germany during WWII as Nazi Germany or simply the Nazi's as that period is not reflective of the people who make up the country today). I see the flag as a representation of the country and its people regardless of our colourful history. I understand that there will be minority groups that may not be happy with our flag, but find me one country who has not had a colourful history. Greenland?

[malloy]

This whole thing brings up an interesting issue, and I'm sure I'll cop shit for bringing this up.

We have a big problem, in that a lot of people identify our national flag not as a symbol of national pride as it should be, rather they identify it as a symbol of racism and bogans.

I think the reason for this is pretty clear, because it's the first thing these racist groups/protestor/whatever grab and wave around, and it's the same with bogans they love to fucking have it everywhere on their clothes and cars and what not.

Whereas the flag is not as prominent as it should be when it comes to positive representations of our nation. Eg, we dont even use our flags colours for our sporting teams and some generic green and gold flag being waved is about as common as our national flag. Not too mention this strange phenomenon whereby the Aboriginal flag is waved alongside the Australian flag in a lot of official situations.

The end result is that the flag just isnt as prominent as it should be in the right situations, but is very prominent in the wrong situations, which affects the perception of its symbolism.

Given that there are already issues with the flag, in that it contains the flag of another nation in it and therefore stands for some quite horrible things TBH, it's time we really got a move on with replacing it.

That doesn't mean I approve of people burning it though.

It shits me that our flag is not viewed as as symbol of national pride.

Our flag actually has the flag of three other nations on it, but I guess it is largely irrelevant whether it is one or three.

I don't think that the flag stands for 'some quite horrible things' merely because it has the flag of 'another nation' nor that policies of past governments were oppressive to Aboriginals (some what similar to the way most people refer to Germany during WWII as Nazi Germany or simply the Nazi's as that period is not reflective of the people who make up the country today). I see the flag as a representation of the country and its people regardless of our colourful history. I understand that there will be minority groups that may not be happy with our flag, but find me one country who has not had a colourful history.Greenland?

Greenland was established and settled based on a lie.

[Pete Heartspur]

The cunt on the left. I hate this cunt the most!

[sheepdog]

This whole thing brings up an interesting issue, and I'm sure I'll cop shit for bringing this up.

We have a big problem, in that a lot of people identify our national flag not as a symbol of national pride as it should be, rather they identify it as a symbol of racism and bogans.

I think the reason for this is pretty clear, because it's the first thing these racist groups/protestor/whatever grab and wave around, and it's the same with bogans they love to fucking have it everywhere on their clothes and cars and what not.

Whereas the flag is not as prominent as it should be when it comes to positive representations of our nation. Eg, we dont even use our flags colours for our sporting teams and some generic green and gold flag being waved is about as common as our national flag. Not too mention this strange phenomenon whereby the Aboriginal flag is waved alongside the Australian flag in a lot of official situations.

The end result is that the flag just isnt as prominent as it should be in the right situations, but is very prominent in the wrong situations, which affects the perception of its symbolism.

Given that there are already issues with the flag, in that it contains the flag of another nation in it and therefore stands for some quite horrible things TBH, it's time we really got a move on with replacing it.

That doesn't mean I approve of people burning it though.

It shits me that our flag is not viewed as as symbol of national pride.

Our flag actually has the flag of three other nations on it, but I guess it is largely irrelevant whether it is one or three.

I don't think that the flag stands for 'some quite horrible things' merely because it has the flag of 'another nation' nor that policies of past governments were oppressive to Aboriginals (some what similar to the way most people refer to Germany during WWII as Nazi Germany or simply the Nazi's as that period is not reflective of the people who make up the country today). I see the flag as a representation of the country and its people regardless of our colourful history. I understand that there will be minority groups that may not be happy with our flag, but find me one country who has not had a colourful history.Greenland? Greenland was established and settled based on a lie. But it's always been GREENland.

One colour the whole time.

[Tesla]

I fully agree with replacing it with something more representative of all Australians. As part of the process I'd probably say it's about time we integrated both indigenous flags into the design and remove the three flag culture that has developed as a result. We are one nation not three and it's about time we acted like it.

While the indigenous Australians are obviously an important part of Australia's history and so they do deserve some consideration when it comes to a new flag, they also represent less than 2.5% of our population, so I hardly think that integrating the three flags should be the primary motivation behind a new flag. Frankly the current 'three flag culture' is quite ridiculous, especially since one of those 3 flags represents about 10% of that 2.5% figure.

Can't we just follow Canada's lead and pick a simple symbol that represents Australia and just create a green and gold flag of it (following on from my original post on this whole flag discussion, I see green and gold as Australia's colours). No symbols of another sovereign state, and no symbols of minority groups in our country.

Edited April 5, 2015 by Tesla

[Moraiwe]

Regardless of which side of politics you are on, surely the burning of the Australian flag by the counter protesters has to take the cake as the most disgraceful act of the day. I can only imagine the uproar if one of the Reclaim Australia posters was pictured burning a Koran.

If burning an Australian flag was the most disgraceful act of the day, then:

a ) it was one of the best days in history

or

b ) you have problems with perspective or priorities.

 

I am sorry that you don't hold this country's flag as sacred.

 

Do you care to elaborate on what my perspectives or priorities should be according to you?

The issue I had was you using the word 'most', thereby placing an act of flag burning as being more disgraceful than anything else that occurred that day. I tend to think that physical acts of violence such as murder, rape, assault, etc. as being worse. That's just me though.

Flag burning is a rather impotent act, it can create publicity but it mainly does nothing more than anger others. The people who do it are generally either too idiotic too realise how much anger it creates, or intelligent enough to think those who are angered by it aren't intelligent enough prevent themselves from doing something more stupid in response. Unless people overreact, it ultimately harms no one.

Oh, and out of curiosity, would you consider the current flag still to be sacred if it were replaced by a different one?

[thisphantomfortress]

Regardless of which side of politics you are on, surely the burning of the Australian flag by the counter protesters has to take the cake as the most disgraceful act of the day. I can only imagine the uproar if one of the Reclaim Australia posters was pictured burning a Koran.

If burning an Australian flag was the most disgraceful act of the day, then:

a ) it was one of the best days in history

or

b ) you have problems with perspective or priorities.  

I am sorry that you don't hold this country's flag as sacred.

 

Do you care to elaborate on what my perspectives or priorities should be according to you? The issue I had was you using the word 'most', thereby placing an act of flag burning as being more disgraceful than anything else that occurred that day. I tend to think that physical acts of violence such as murder, rape, assault, etc. as being worse. That's just me though.

Flag burning is a rather impotent act, it can create publicity but it mainly does nothing more than anger others. The people who do it are generally either too idiotic too realise how much anger it creates, or intelligent enough to think those who are angered by it aren't intelligent enough prevent themselves from doing something more stupid in response. Unless people overreact, it ultimately harms no one.

Oh, and out of curiosity, would you consider the current flag still to be sacred if it were replaced by a different one?

Wow white knight rides in. Surely you must be taking the piss, you've completely removed what he said from its context of the protest.

[malloy]

Regardless of which side of politics you are on, surely the burning of the Australian flag by the counter protesters has to take the cake as the most disgraceful act of the day. I can only imagine the uproar if one of the Reclaim Australia posters was pictured burning a Koran.

If burning an Australian flag was the most disgraceful act of the day, then:

a ) it was one of the best days in history

or

b ) you have problems with perspective or priorities.

I am sorry that you don't hold this country's flag as sacred.

Do you care to elaborate on what my perspectives or priorities should be according to you?

The issue I had was you using the word 'most', thereby placing an act of flag burning as being more disgraceful than anything else that occurred that day. I tend to think that physical acts of violence such as murder, rape, assault, etc. as being worse. That's just me though.

Flag burning is a rather impotent act, it can create publicity but it mainly does nothing more than anger others. The people who do it are generally either too idiotic too realise how much anger it creates, or intelligent enough to think those who are angered by it aren't intelligent enough prevent themselves from doing something more stupid in response. Unless people overreact, it ultimately harms no one.

Oh, and out of curiosity, would you consider the current flag still to be sacred if it were replaced by a different one?

I will concede that my choice of words could have been better. My comment regarding the most disgraceful act of the day was meant to be understood as most disgraceful act in relation to the protests.

I would take a guess and say that those burning the flag are likely unintelligent and did burn the flag in the hope of a violent reaction to try to claim to be the victim and to portray their opponents as the aggressors. This is a appears to be a rather common tactic (the reaction baiting) employed by the Socialist Alliance at many of their protests (from their many conflicting causes). I do not think that any great intelligence is required in this tactic as you seem to think.

As for if the flag was replaced query, I think I would still hold the flag as sacred. Whether I held it in higher regard than the replacement flag I do not know, but it would depend on what the replacement flag was designed to represent and whether it is an abomination. It should be noted that I am against a change in the national flag.

@Tesla you mentioned that the low population percentage of Aboriginals meant that they should have less representation regarding a replacement flag. Does this go the other way where the vast majority of Australians have heritage from the UK and Ireland (represented by St Patrick's cross regardless of whether they are part of UK) and can be said to be represented by the current Australian flag? Surely that would be indicate a change of flag is not required based on representation?

[Moraiwe]

I didn't say those who burned flags were intelligent, I said they may have been intelligent enough to do it as a baiting tactic (ie. they were aware of the consequences).

Whatever the design, a new Australian flag would be meant to represent Australia. How could it be any less sacred than the current? (This is an honest question - I'm not asking to try and trap you, just don't understand your viewpoint).

[Deeming]

The socialist will always hate any flag we have unless it had a hammer and sickle or it was the Aboriginal flag - they will never be happy. 

[Tesla]

@Tesla you mentioned that the low population percentage of Aboriginals meant that they should have less representation regarding a replacement flag. Does this go the other way where the vast majority of Australians have heritage from the UK and Ireland (represented by St Patrick's cross regardless of whether they are part of UK) and can be said to be represented by the current Australian flag? Surely that would be indicate a change of flag is not required based on representation?

What are you talking about, both times you've replied to me you have completely misunderstood what I'm saying.

But to answer your question, no, like I said I dont see why any specific group needs to be represented on the flag.

You're grasping at straws.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Tesla

[malloy]

I didn't say those who burned flags were intelligent, I said they may have been intelligent enough to do it as a baiting tactic (ie. they were aware of the consequences).

Whatever the design, a new Australian flag would be meant to represent Australia. How could it be any less sacred than the current? (This is an honest question - I'm not asking to try and trap you, just don't understand your viewpoint).

 

 

I know it is highly unlikely that it would be replaced with something that would not be representative of Australia, but say for example the greens got in power and decided to change the flag to something ultra left wing/hippie (as stated very highly unlikely) then it is possible that it would be an abomination and I would not consider it the flag of Australia and subsequently hold it in less regard to the replaced flag of Australia.   I can not stress enough that if the flag was replaced that it is unlikely the flag would be replaced as I described above, however I did not want my previous statement to be confined when a replacement flag could be many various things.  

 

I guess the situation could be loosely likened to when Manchester United changed their badge to say Manchester United instead of Manchester United Football Club many of the fans did not accept the new badge as the real badge of MUFC.  

 

 

 

@Tesla you mentioned that the low population percentage of Aboriginals meant that they should have less representation regarding a replacement flag. Does this go the other way where the vast majority of Australians have heritage from the UK and Ireland (represented by St Patrick's cross regardless of whether they are part of UK) and can be said to be represented by the current Australian flag? Surely that would be indicate a change of flag is not required based on representation?

What are you talking about, both times you've replied to me you have completely misunderstood what I'm saying.

But to answer your question, no, like I said I dont see why any specific group needs to be represented on the flag.

You're grasping at straws.

 

 

 

No different to the straws you are grasping at to say it should be replaced because of the union jack.  FWIW you never cared to clarify what your position was regarding the 'it stands for quite horrible things' or anything else I misunderstood.

[Moraiwe]

It sounds like you're are saying you would not respect the flag if it contained symbols you disagreed with. I'm sure plenty of people feel that way about the current flag.

[Tesla]

No different to the straws you are grasping at to say it should be replaced because of the union jack.

I wouldnt call it grasping at straws when it's actually quite a common opinion.

But if you go back that wasn't even the main point of my original post.

[malloy]

It sounds like you're are saying you would not respect the flag if it contained symbols you disagreed with. I'm sure plenty of people feel that way about the current flag.

 

No. That is not what I am saying. I was saying that in very limited and extreme circumstances I would not view a new flag of Australia to be the legitimate flag of Australia and hence would not hold it in the same regard as the current national flag.

[jw1739]

A national flag is a symbol of that nation. It cannot possibly contain elements that reflect all the various constituent peoples that make up that nation, and doesn't purport to. It represents them all by virtue of the fact that it's a symbol of the country that they belong to. If certain groups of people don't identify with a flag, then IMO it's probable that they actually don't identify with the nation itself rather than just the symbol.

 

I don't have any particular problem if Australians decide by referendum or some other democratic means at some time to change our national flag, but I don't see any particular reason to do so. Although I happen to be of English origin, I see the Union Flag in the corner of our flag as representing many of the cornerstones of our country as it is today - a stable and robust parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, our social justice and welfare system, our main language and much of our culture etc. etc. - and which we took from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and have maintained since 1788 whilst slowly tweaking them to suit our particular circumstances. Although many people come here to find their new home for many reasons, and they may not consciously think of those cornerstones of our society that I have mentioned, once they are here they enjoy those protections and benefits along with the rest of us, and that is how they are represented by our flag alongside all other Australians.

 

I certainly do not see the Union Flag as representing past injustices. Not only is it inappropriate to apply today's values to past events, but I doubt that there is a country in the world to which some past injustice or atrocity cannot be attributed.

[Moraiwe]

Thanks for your responses Malloy.

Moving on to another topic, and one that perhaps belongs in a law section rather than a politics one, can anybody tell me how electoral boundaries are decided upon in Victoria/Australia? Who's in charge of it? The gerrymandering that's going on in much of the US has me wondering about what protections we have in place to prevent the same occurring here.

[Deeming]

Thanks for your responses Malloy.

Moving on to another topic, and one that perhaps belongs in a law section rather than a politics one, can anybody tell me how electoral boundaries are decided upon in Victoria/Australia? Who's in charge of it? The gerrymandering that's going on in much of the US has me wondering about what protections we have in place to prevent the same occurring here.

It is the electoral commissions Federal and State. They take submissions from anyone including the parties but they are independent.

 

[cadete]

Thanks for your responses Malloy.

Moving on to another topic, and one that perhaps belongs in a law section rather than a politics one, can anybody tell me how electoral boundaries are decided upon in Victoria/Australia? Who's in charge of it? The gerrymandering that's going on in much of the US has me wondering about what protections we have in place to prevent the same occurring here.

Forget Gerrymandering in the US - Have a look at the recent South Australian Election if you want to see Gerrymandering at its most devastating.